TSA's Advanced Pat-Down Techniques . . .


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last time I flew in June, I went through the scans and then because the scan couldn't detect around the chest area very well, I had to be pat down. It was done very professionally and without embarrassment. I'm sure many of the TSA agents dislike it as much as those that are flying.

The pat-down procedure has changed since then- it's now with the palm of the hand, and no areas of the body are off limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What if it's your daughter's picture they're more interested in?

How would the pictures being of her daughter instead of herself shift the Law of Chastity culpability from the person keeping the images with prurient interest?

Edit:I entered the discussion talking about the Law of Chastity implications of being a scanee or patee and unless my memory is playing with me Wingnut's post you quoted whas inside that thread of that topic before the merge with JAG's thread.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pat-down procedure has changed since then- it's now with the palm of the hand, and no areas of the body are off limits.

They did it with the palm of the hand when I went through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would the pictures being of her daughter instead of herself shift the Law of Chastity culpability from the person keeping the images with prurient interest?

It doesn't- i'm simply invoking the "think of the children" argument because in this case, I really don't like the idea of nude images of my daughter/wife being produced. For me personally, i'll drop my britches right there in the terminal if they REALLY want to see.... I doubt they do.... but when it comes to my family, it's a different story.

From what the TSA has said, the sample images released to the media aren't exactly accurate- blurring doesn't occur, and supposedly the images are more detailed.

Here's a sample image from the TSA

As for the detail of the images, I point you to this story-

TSA Worker Arrested After Jokes, Fight About Size of Genitalia - FoxNews.com

If it's detailed enough to spur jokes from his coworkers, then the resolution has got to be higher than what we've been shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's the Radiation. It's not safe.

Your radiation dosage accumulates over your lifetime- your goal should be to minimize your exposure, not to increase it. For people who fly a lot, this could really add up to a significant increase in their dosage.

That is a very good point. Usually though the objection I hear is about invasion of privacy. I could certainly see why a business traveler or what have you wouldn't want to irradiate themselves a couple times a week.

Side Note: I've heared that CYA and patient insisted CAT scans have similar concerns. I've even heard of patients insisting on a CAT scan as part of the yearly check-up but I don't know how reliable my source is on that.

It doesn't- i'm simply invoking the "think of the children" argument because in this case, I really don't like the idea of nude images of my daughter/wife being produced. For me personally, i'll drop my britches right there in the terminal if they REALLY want to see.... I doubt they do.... but when it comes to my family, it's a different story.

I'm meh about it. As mentioned its in a professional capacity. If some sick person wants to think dirty thoughts he can do so just as easily at the park as in front of the scanner. Actually I'd rather it be the TSA Employee thinking it rather than the guy at the park when I think about it.

P.S. I'm not telling people they can't be offended or disturbed. They should certainly apply pressure to their elected officials if they don't like how government agencies are being run.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned its in a professional capacity. If some sick person wants to think dirty thoughts he can do so just as easily at the park as in front of the scanner. Actually I'd rather it be the TSA Employee thinking it rather than the guy at the park when I think about it.

This point is only good if you trust people in a professional capacity.

Personally I don't know where I stand on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This point is only good if you trust people in a professional capacity.

Are you suggesting that when a security screener tells me to stand in the scanner and views the image that they are going beyond the authority extended them by their position? Or in other words that they don't have the authority to scan me and view the resultant images?

I'm not saying that because they are professionals they won't drool at the images; such isn't my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that when a security screener tells me to stand in the scanner and views the image that they are going beyond the authority extended them by their position?

Nope. Nor implied it.

Or in other words that they don't have the authority to scan me and view the resultant images?

I didn't imply it in any words.

I'm not saying that because they are professionals they won't drool at the images; such isn't my point.

The only sentence necessary. XD

THAT is where people might have problems. With trusting the guy who is scanning them.

That was my point. I wasn't trying to imply that it was your point. I was just using your post to make mine.

I think it may have been a fail, or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my point. I wasn't trying to imply that it was your point. I was just using your post to make mine. .

You quoted my post and said this point is only true if you trust people in a professional capacity, thus why I assumed you were talking about my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's the Radiation. It's not safe.

Your radiation dosage accumulates over your lifetime- your goal should be to minimize your exposure, not to increase it. For people who fly a lot, this could really add up to a significant increase in their dosage.

this doesn't just have to be an issue for ppl that fly a lot. anyone that has had cancer and already has high levels of radiation accumulated in their body will likely have negative reactions to the scans. my mom had cancer treatments 30 yrs ago and will feel sick if she eats food warmed in a microwave. even that small of an amt is enough to make her sick. she won't even keep a microwave in her house due to it. i can't imagine how sick she would be going through a full body scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that when a security screener tells me to stand in the scanner and views the image that they are going beyond the authority extended them by their position? Or in other words that they don't have the authority to scan me and view the resultant images?

I'm not saying that because they are professionals they won't drool at the images; such isn't my point.

I wish the courts would hurry up and hear some of these screening cases- at what point does this encroach into our 4th amendment rights?

In case we've forgotten the text-

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

The question must also be asked- why are pilots being scanned? If anyone could bring down a plane, they could- just by pushing forward on the stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't like they can act on those thoughts anyway.

not to be the total pessimist but my first thought reading this was "until things build up and they become the psycho rapist"

no i don't think it works that way. was just my first thought. i don't think male ob/gyn's end up being rapists or anything. i think a person can see nude ppl professionally and it never have an adverse affect on their integrity or be lustful for them. i would guess the airline workers get tired of looking at nude overweight americans all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit:I entered the discussion talking about the Law of Chastity implications of being a scanee or patee and unless my memory is playing with me Wingnut's post you quoted whas inside that thread of that topic before the merge with JAG's thread.

Yes, mine referred to the chastity issues.

And why were these threads merged at all? They're both about TSA, but completely separate issues. The combined thread is very confusing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the courts would hurry up and hear some of these screening cases- at what point does this encroach into our 4th amendment rights?

I suppose if that ever became an issue they could just require consent be given. I wonder if they'd have to get it expressly (verbal or written) or if they could do the sign stating, "By proceeding beyond this point consent is given to search of persons and property.*"

Of course that just passes the can of worms along to about how far you can take such things. An employer could require random drug tests (in most areas in the US I'm aware of) but they'd be in trouble if part of the contract required consent for random mammograms performed by management.

* Actually I think they already have those. I'll check when fly out from Utah this Christmas.

The question must also be asked- why are pilots being scanned? If anyone could bring down a plane, they could- just by pushing forward on the stick.

I imagine one could bring up some scenarios about a pilot having a bomb in his bag unawares or using a gun to kill his copilot so he can push the stick forward without interference but that's quite a stretch.

I imagine it's typical CYA. No politician wants to be caught having relaxed security only to have some bad happen even if the unrelaxed security wouldn't have prevented it anyway. Creates a vicious spiral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would make this simple - you don't want searched? Then don't fly. You wont let your body be searched? Then you aren't flying. If your Christian or Muslim or personal faith is against this and you don't want searched - you aren't flying! Go drive a car but you aren't flying. Simple.

It would help if those that searched were highly trained and not typical "anybodies" off the street that are not much better than the people in state prisons. But when they started beefing up security after 9/11 some wanted high paid well trained people running the security. But nope, the anti "big government" radicals put a stop to that - "We want to hire low cost dumb security guards off the street, not well educated union guards that will show respect and know how to do the job right."

Also, I've heard in Indianapolis, the police send their bad cops to the Indianapolis airport. That's how they keep them off the streets. Throw in cheap paid security. It's all disgusting.

Just do strip searches. Take the cloths off. Male guards for men and female guards for women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband has been following this issue quite closely. He visits infowars.com on a daily basis and found this article relating to the patdowns:

TSA Gives Rapists And Illegals The Green Light While Groping Children

Every article that I have read in regards to these Body Scanners states that they actually are a Naked Body Scanner giving the TSA agents a full and explicit view of everything. Though some people may believe that the pat downs do not violate the Law of Chastity, there is something that states that heavy petting violates that law. Any contact with the genitalia fits into that category. The fact that the TSA agents aren't performing background checks on their own employees is extremely distrubing. Would you want some sexual offender groping and feeling up you or your children, or even looking at your naked body on the body scanners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though some people may believe that the pat downs do not violate the Law of Chastity, there is something that states that heavy petting violates that law. Any contact with the genitalia fits into that category.

A pat-down is not conducted with the intent to create sexual arousal. The context is so different.

If you insist that the pat-down is a violation of the law of chastity because it constitutes heavy petting, then you also have to include female pelvic exams, male prostate exams, colonoscopies, childbirth, etc.

Edited by Wingnut
add thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share